LAUSR

This commentary critically examines Phelps and Miao’s concept of the new urban managerialism (NUM) in light of three geopolitical processes operating around the state and urban politics: (1) the geopolitics of city-regionalism; (2) the geopolitics of urban environmental management; and (3) the geopolitical implications of the public–private financing of urban infrastructure. It argues that the NUM remains fundamentally a territorialized political project and raises questions about where to draw conceptual and territorial boundaries around the urban public interest.